So that explains why male dogs are so sexually induced by the scent of a female. Animal species with high sense of smell have strong sexual arousal (to the point of no control) than those who have less. What do libido, risks, and scents have in common?

Having worked with Police dogs for years, it's not THAT impressive though. German Shepherds and Belgian Malinois (really any police dog other than Bloodhounds) are trained to track based on ground disturbance and the most recent scent. Tracking across grass or fields is relatively easy for those dogs. Had the suspect run across a parking lot, the dog would likely not have found him. It's why it's so important for initial responding officers to point out the last place they saw the dog, and not contaminate the area with their own scent.

Bloodhounds, on the other hand, those things are freakishly good on all surfaces. They can distinguish scents too. I've seen Bloodhounds track missing children and elderly people 18-24 hours after they went missing. Truly impressive.

Uisce Beatha:Dogs: Great for tracking folks, etc, when allowed to do their job unhindered (aka, with a well trained handler). BAD at searching for contraband with a handler who WANTS them to find something.

whoever wrote that article doesn't understand Bayes Theorem. Particularly the line about coin-flips.

Uisce Beatha:Dogs: Great for tracking folks, etc, when allowed to do their job unhindered (aka, with a well trained handler). BAD at searching for contraband with a handler who WANTS them to find something.

After handling a search and rescue bloodhound for 4 years this isn't vert impressive. My bloodhound Sophie ran trails that were 3 miles long and 7 days old. My bloodhound puppy Garmin is just a year into training and runs 1 to 2 mile trails a couple times a week. But we don't have people at the end of our trails that want to shot us either.

cableguy2311:After handling a search and rescue bloodhound for 4 years this isn't vert impressive. My bloodhound Sophie ran trails that were 3 miles long and 7 days old. My bloodhound puppy Garmin is just a year into training and runs 1 to 2 mile trails a couple times a week. But we don't have people at the end of our trails that want to shot us either.

Day_Old_Dutchie:Uisce Beatha: Dogs: Great for tracking folks, etc, when allowed to do their job unhindered (aka, with a well trained handler). BAD at searching for contraband with a handler who WANTS them to find something.BAD![s22.postimg.org image 570x380]BAD DOG!

gwowen:whoever wrote that article doesn't understand Bayes Theorem. Particularly the line about coin-flips.

Following the link chain:In one study published last year in the journal Animal Cognition, researchers rigged some tests designed to fool dogs into falsely alerting and others designed to trick handlers into thinking a package contained narcotics (it didn't). Of the 144 total searches performed, the dogs falsely alerted 123 times. More interesting, the dogs were twice as likely to falsely alert to packages designed to trick their handlers than those designed to trick the dogs.

I think I'll trust the professional scientific journal for data on the reliability of canine detection.

Uisce Beatha:gwowen: whoever wrote that article doesn't understand Bayes Theorem. Particularly the line about coin-flips.

Following the link chain:In one study published last year in the journal Animal Cognition, researchers rigged some tests designed to fool dogs into falsely alerting and others designed to trick handlers into thinking a package contained narcotics (it didn't). Of the 144 total searches performed, the dogs falsely alerted 123 times. More interesting, the dogs were twice as likely to falsely alert to packages designed to trick their handlers than those designed to trick the dogs.

I think I'll trust the professional scientific journal for data on the reliability of canine detection.

Did you read the part that said: "How much that matters in the real world is unclear." (Note also, that the test does not say "The dog showed an interest", it said "The handler indicated the dog showed an interest". Is this the dog trying to please the handler, or the handler trying to show off his dog? The dog-human relationship works both ways)

Any, I wasn't talking about the link chain, so I'll repeat what I wrote: whoever wrote your cited article didn't understand Bayes Theorem.

gwowen:that the test does not say "The dog showed an interest", it said "The handler indicated the dog showed an interest". Is this the dog trying to please the handler, or the handler trying to show off his dog? The dog-human relationship works both ways

The dog-handler team was what was tested, yes, because that is what is used in the real world. If the handler causes a failure or the if dog causes the failure, it is still a failure, and an unreliable method of determining probable cause.

And the journalist who summarized was pithy, because, let's be honest, that gets attention, and most people don't understand probability, test theory, or Bayes.